The current conflict has not changed our fundamental understanding of what Bitcoin is. We all have significant skin in the game. In my view, the main difference between us comes down to the information and perspectives we each rely on. I am convinced that almost everyone in Bitcoin values your work. Thanks. However, after a long period of neutrality and silence, suddenly taking a clear side based on speculative arguments naturally triggers reactions. The reason we have different blockchains today is historically connected to Core’s stance against non-monetary transactions. That is a fact. And that stance has clearly shifted. The data that ends up on the blockchain is a direct consequence of the current rules. Bitcoin is meant to be a payment network. If the current state of the blockchain no longer reflects that, then the rules need to be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted. Instead of personal attacks, the technical arguments should be discussed. If both sides clearly state what they disagree with on a technical level, compromises and durable solutions can be developed. Especially if the goal is the same. That is exactly what I hardly see from Core and why i oppose it. Why, after such a long time, has no serious compromise even been visibly explored? If concerns are widely expressed and there is still no sign of meaningful reconsideration, it does not look like an open process. It looks like a predetermined direction being pushed through.